No. 18-9720

Frederick H. Banks v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2019-06-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeals appellate-jurisdiction civil-procedure civil-rights collateral-order-doctrine due-process jurisdiction standing timeliness
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether the Appeals Court erred in failing to find that the Courts lacked Subject matter Jurisdiction based on petitioners pro te informal brief of Appellant which "briefed the right appeal"? because the commitment exceeded 45 days in violation of the alternate courts statutory authority.

Whether the Appeals Court decision in Pierce v. Blaine which dismissed an interlocutory Appeal under 18 usc Y2yied) for lack of jurisdiction, and conflates units all other sister Collateral order doctrine, is wrong?

Whether the Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to proceed because once pedido and Fine Butrer exceeded 10 days in violation of the Speedy Trial Act?

Whether the listed print in hw pro se Notice of Appeal?

Whether the Appeal cont's DutatCort lack subject matter Jurisdiction?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the District Court erred in committing federal law to the State Burner

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-25
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-05-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 19, 2019)

Attorneys

Frederick H. Banks
Frederick H. Banks — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent